Former NFL linebacker, National Organization for Marriage all and Antioch Bible Church pastor Ken Hutcherson who is working to overturn Washington States recent marriage equality law wrote a recent piece for the right wing religious rag WorldNetDaily saying that “its take back the rainbow for God” and let “the homosexual community find a different religious symbol to commandeer.”
How did we get here? Just when was this symbol liquidated of its meaning? When was the sign pointing to God’s promise intentionally co-opted to point to a certain lifestyle choice? Let’s just say that the homosexual movement has been busy over the last couple of decades and that many of these changes have taken place without so much as a peep from the larger Christian community. Rome’s burning; Nero’s fiddling; and Christians are taking a well-deserved nap.
Yes, let’s take back the rainbow for God. Let the homosexual community find a different religious symbol to commandeer. If they were feeling congenial, perhaps the Muslims would let them borrow their crescent moon. In these desperate economic times, maybe the Wiccans would rent the pentagram to them. I don’t really care. What I want is for the Christian community to wake up, wipe the sleep from their eyes, and realize that they are in a spiritual battle that isn’t going away and has no demilitarized zones. The rainbow is a symbol, but it’s meaning points to the very character of God. So Christians …use this God-given symbol for His glory. Using it won’t make you a homosexual. It won’t make you a New Ager. It won’t make leprechauns real. But it might allow you to get into conversations with people who need to meet the very One Who gave us His promise in the first place.
“She might as well change her name to John Wilkes Booth because what she’s doing now is trying to put a bullet in the head of one of the greatest traditions that has ever existed and has built our society, and that is marriage between one man and one woman…….If this law is passed, what is going to happen? Do they believe that if they change the definition of marriage being between one man and one woman, what is going to stop two men one woman, two women one man, one man against a horse, one many with a boy, one man with anything?“
Interesting, if not completely ass backwards and insane analogy coming from a hateful anti-gay black man of God..
John Wilkes Booth put a bullet in the head of the man who changed the tradition and practice of slavery, not the one trying to preserve it. By his reasoning, he himself is like John Wilkes Boothe, trying to put a bullet in the head of those who would change a tradition which, like slavery, holds that one group of people is less than those of the majority.